Apocalypse X-Men Apocalypse News and Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 43

[2kt09]

edit

 

[Blitzkrieg]

64 now, what is going on in here???

 

[psylockolussus]

66 now!

 

[Frankeh]

Ottman and Singer created some of the most impressive scenes in a comic book movie this year with (1) Apocalypse taking over Cerebro and (2) Jean's Phoenix moment: These two scenes are impressively edited and make me tear up every time.

I have to disagree man, while the Phoenix moment was cool, for the amount of mutants and the global scale they had no sequence in this movie is particularly impressive. Especially in comparison to Civil War and now Doctor Strange. Nukes being shot into the sky? We've seen that in Bond movies since the 70's. Cities being destroyed? Nothing we haven't seen in disaster movies.

With Apocalypse's morphing abilities I thought we would've seen some impressive power displays from him against the X-Men but no dice. Storm was a horseman and all she did was levitate, throw lightning and create wind. Jean (pre-Phoenix) could've been throwing objects left and right, using forcefields and levitating, but only used her TK like once to cover herself from Angel's metal shards. They could've had Psylocke engage in a telepathic battle with Jean but opted to use her GreenLantern-esque TK powers, which I'll admit were cool but seemed nonsensical, sometimes they cut cars and sometimes they can strangle someone (?).

I liked Angel vs Kurt but the effects were weak, and Angel's flying is very much inferior to the flying we've seen from Iron Man, War Machine and Falcon. Flying seems to be an extraordinary difficulty for the filmmakers since X1.

 

[def28]

Agreed Frankeh.

Set piece wise, the intro with the horsemen was better then just about anything else in Apocalypse imo. I love the energy, brutality and excitement of it. Where was that for the rest of the film?

That Cerebro scene moving to Havok accidentally killing himself and then Quicksilver saving the day all feels like a mess of ideas. I can totally see why they cut that mall scene out. Would have been like 3 music montages in a row. Didn't feel organic at all.

 

[2kt09]

Having seen the mall scene. That was painfully mediocre like an ad for something. That definitely needed to not be in the final cut.

 

[EnDz0n3]

^^I hated the 80s VHS quality social media videos they released for XA.

Still haven't bought the blu-ray...lol I'll wait for Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals

Doctor Strange...did not like that movie. There wasn't anything bad about it. Just nothing to get excited about, F/X were good though. [BLACKOUT]Dormammu could've been designed better?[/BLACKOUT] Script needed work. Jokes were not landing, even with the Thursday night Previews/IMAX 3D crowd. Though there was one woman in the middle of the theatre that was laughing at EVERYTHING...Not sold on Cumberbatch as Strange. He was ok, again nothing to get too excited over. Seemed like they were trying to recapture the magic they had with RDJ for Ironman, but not succeeding.

And does it feel like you can count the number of filming locations on 1 hand (exaggeration I know)? Did they rent 3 small corners of the hospital? lol

I think this was a middle of the road offering from Marvel Studios. Still better than BVS if compared to this year. Haven't seen Suicide Squad, don't really going out of my way to do so.

I still go back to my X-men Apocalypse Thursday night Previews/non-IMAX 3D crowd (in the same theatre as Doctor Strange) where the crowd was eating up every easter egg and every joke and where the theatre applauded at the end.

I have since seen the film on a plane a third time and not as enamoured with it compared to my first viewing. That 80s aesthetic is quite ugly tbh

Sorry for the rant...

 

[iacobusleo]

^^I hated the 80s VHS quality social media videos they released for XA.

Still haven't bought the blu-ray...lol I'll wait for Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals

Doctor Strange...did not like that movie. There wasn't anything bad about it. Just nothing to get excited about, F/X were good though.

I got to say, Marvel has a knack for coming up with crowd pleasing and entertaining in the moment blockbusters but with not much else to them. Im really really trying to like your movies, Marvel, I really am, but you're not making it easy.

To bring things back on topic, I'm just burned out on these movies. This year has been a year of disappointment for me (yes including Civil War). Only Deadpool was good for me, and even then it was limited by it being another origin story.

Probably best to not get sucked into the hype anymore and just be pleasantly surprised.

 

[def28]

Most of my friends are getting burnt. Doctor Strange was split with my group and they didn't care at all for either BvS or Apocalypse. But they flat out despised Suicide Squad. That film created anger after leaving the theatre.

This years been weak overall though, not just comic films. People are tired of paying for crap or mediocrity.

Having seen the mall scene. That was painfully mediocre like an ad for something. That definitely needed to not be in the final cut.

Meh, there's already plenty of mediocre stuff going on in the film that takes itself far too seriously where it was supposed to be regardless. There are parts of the scene I enjoy, and some cringe gags. It needed more with the young team hanging out and bonding one way or the other. They are the stronger and more refreshing part of the film.

 

[DavidHaller]

sorry guys, I am seeing a lot more artistry in Ottman's edited scenes than in any Marvel or DC movie released...I really can appreciate Apocalypse's cerebro scene and how music and visuals jointly produce an impactful emotional experience (...ruined by a dumb Quicksilver scene afterwards of course...).

don't get me wrong I totally agree that "X-Men: Apocalypse" was a medicore/bad movie...but at least I can emotionally respond to some scenes in "X-Men: Apocalypse".

All the other Marvel movies (except maybe Civil War) are just the same boring commercial BLA for me. I do not see why a medicore movie like "Doctor Strange" is supposed to be any better...? Aren't all Marvel heroes exactly the same character? Where is the difference between all these cocky white males like Tony Stark, Captain America, Doctor Strange, Thor, Hawkeye, or Ant-Man?

these "vs. discussions" of course lead nowhere but I personally prefer a bad Singer movie over all this commercial Marvel sameness as a promotional tools for theme parks.

 

[def28]

And others don't so, to each their own.

 

[MadVillainy]

The funny thing is that he's acting like X-Men isn't just made to "promote theme parks" as it were.

 

[2kt09]

Meh, there's already plenty of mediocre stuff going on in the film that takes itself far too seriously where it was supposed to be regardless. There are parts of the scene I enjoy, and some cringe gags. It needed more with the young team hanging out and bonding one way or the other. They are the stronger and more refreshing part of the film.

Like you said it wouldn't be an organic fit amidst the already tonally inconsistent scenes. A better mall scene might have been sorely missed, but this just so happens to be a scene worth deleting.

 

[DavidHaller]

The funny thing is that he's acting like X-Men isn't just made to "promote theme parks" as it were.

Well I guess I prefer to get fooled by mainstream productions "fake artistic values", over mainstream productions which do not even try to fool me.

Let's say I prefer Beyoncé's Lemonade over Britney Spears bubble gum ****. Fair enough, from a pessimistic cultural perspective they are of course both the same money machines but affectively they are not!

In brief, I prefer a queer jewish voice over straight white male privilege.

 

[MadVillainy]

This is the 2nd time this morning someone took what I said and tried to turn it into some point about social injustice.

It must be something in the water

EDIT: and you do realize most of the directors of the X Men movies are straight white guys right?

 

[DavidHaller]

This is the 2nd time this morning someone took what I said and tried to turn it into some point about social injustice.

It must be something in the water

EDIT: and you do realize most of the directors of the X Men movies are straight white guys right?

Yeah, so what? Gosh, you straight male people do not have to get instantly defensive because I am watching these movies for different reasons than you do...Singer's take on his X-Men movies (X1, X2, Days of Future Past) are obviously NOT informed by a dominant heteronormative, white maleness like 99 percent of blockbuster productions from the United States (although X-Men Apocalypse is a different debate and quite disgusting when it comes to gender and race.......). Days of Future Past's political message is extremely powerful and simply a beautiful movie.

I found "First Class" sexist and "X3" and "Deadpool" tremendously entrenched in straight male privilege. This is why I do not have any particular love for these two movies and do not have the patience to watch them with an oppositional or ironic gaze.

We all have different reasons watching these movies. I have a context in the visual arts and I obviously appreciate the chance to feel represented in a mainstream movie context that normally does not have any queer representation besides heteronormative maleness.

Singer's X-Men movies are clearly queer infrapolitics which is very unique in a blockbuster context where normally queer perspectives simply do not exist, are silenced or presented as hurtful stereotypes.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So watching this today. Thank you Netflix. It is kind of awful. Trying to decide what is worst, this or The Last Stand. Not good.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It's been done in this franchise by X2 and DOFP.

ill disagree with that.. the action was best in X2, but even then they never had action as a team.. it was all 1 on 1 or 1 against many. (NC vs Secret Service, Wolverine Vs Deathstrike, Wolverine Vs Stryker's Men, Jean Vs Scott

 

[X-Maniac]

^^I hated the 80s VHS quality social media videos they released for XA.

Still haven't bought the blu-ray...lol I'll wait for Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals

The Blu-ray is on its way and I'm hoping the commentaries shed light on what the hell they were thinking, lol...

Doctor Strange...did not like that movie. There wasn't anything bad about it. Just nothing to get excited about, F/X were good though. [BLACKOUT]Dormammu could've been designed better?[/BLACKOUT] Script needed work. Jokes were not landing, even with the Thursday night Previews/IMAX 3D crowd. Though there was one woman in the middle of the theatre that was laughing at EVERYTHING...Not sold on Cumberbatch as Strange. He was ok, again nothing to get too excited over. Seemed like they were trying to recapture the magic they had with RDJ for Ironman, but not succeeding.

And does it feel like you can count the number of filming locations on 1 hand (exaggeration I know)? Did they rent 3 small corners of the hospital? lol

I think this was a middle of the road offering from Marvel Studios. Still better than BVS if compared to this year. Haven't seen Suicide Squad, don't really going out of my way to do so.

Didn't like Doctor Strange either. Cumberbatch's American accent was distractingly bad. The Inception-esque building folding scenes were well done. But I didn't like the portals and mandalas that were like Catherine Wheel fireworks spitting sparks and embers. And I felt the FX sequences were borrowed from Inception and also (with the time-freeze moments) from X-Men's Quicksilver scenes. I didn't like any of the casting, I just couldn't buy into the whole thing. The jokes fell totally flat (not one person laughed). Very disappointed overall.

I used to read the Doctor Strange comics, I loved the occult otherwordliness they depicted. This felt so very Disney-fied. And very generic.

I still go back to my X-men Apocalypse Thursday night Previews/non-IMAX 3D crowd (in the same theatre as Doctor Strange) where the crowd was eating up every easter egg and every joke and where the theatre applauded at the end.

I have since seen the film on a plane a third time and not as enamoured with it compared to my first viewing. That 80s aesthetic is quite ugly tbh

Sorry for the rant...

Well, clearly XM:A is a very divisive movie. It's clear from comments here that many were disappointed by it and that it's left people very unsure and unclear about where the franchise goes next. The film itself was so concerned with wrapping things up that it didn't feel that much of a launchpad for future films, despite the feeble grafted-on attempts of the end sequence with them in costume.

I had the option to see some movies on a flight to the USA. I chose Independence Day 2, knowing it hadn't been well received but wanting to check it out. It was totally unnecessary as a movie. Then I thought I'd give XM:A another go - the kid next to me asked 'why are you watching that crap' but i carried on. And found myself fast forwarding to the action scenes at the end when they arrive in Egypt because the rest of it was like wading through cement. Sigh. Oh well.

The trailer for Logan was shown before Doctor Strange. No one responded to it in any way that I could hear. A few people thought Arrival looked okay.

I tried explaining Logan to a woman at work, it did not go well... She wondered which Wolverine (past, present, whatever), when it was set (after the happy ending of DoFP, after XM:A, in the bad future of DoFP), why Xavier had hair again, what happened to the mansion and the other X-Men, and so it went on. I gave up and walked off in the end, i couldn't justify the timeline and continuity. I don't think the filmmaking teams know what's going on either - Gambit seems to be scrapped, the director walked off from Deadpool 2, we've heard nothing about New Mutants, Legion is its own thing... You try explaining it!

Not that going to Marvel is the answer to everything, of course.

Interesting to see Marvel Studios is the new branding before Doctor Strange, which means that cannot be used at the start of X-Men movies. Will they have the old Marvel logo, or nothing? Seems like Marvel Studios is making it clear which movies they are actually making...

 

[EnDz0n3]

Then I thought I'd give XM:A another go - the kid next to me asked 'why are you watching that crap' but i carried on.

What a judgemental little snot! LOL do people actually do this?

Correction XA on the plane was my 4th viewing. I forgot I saw the movie a third time before that, in the cheap theatres.

Quite a few people actually chose XA in the plane as I was walking around afterwards (granted it had just come out in Digital).

 

[X-Maniac]

What a judgemental little snot! LOL do people actually do this?

LOL...yes... I became chatty with the three people sat alongside me as i was travelling alone. A man and his son and daughter, who looked to be in their late 20s. We were talking about what movies to watch from the in-flight entertainment. The son made his feelings clear on XM:A when he saw me selecting it from the menu options! It was more amusing than rude. I carried on anyway, though he was not impressed..

 

[iacobusleo]

I don't think the filmmaking teams know what's going on either - Gambit seems to be scrapped, the director walked off from Deadpool 2, we've heard nothing about New Mutants, Legion is its own thing... You try explaining it!

Not that going to Marvel is the answer to everything, of course.

Damn when you put it like that...... XD

The future was so bright after DOFP. Can you imagine how the Fox executives must feel? Oh to be a fly on that wall..

 

[Fervid09]

I'm pretty sure at least some of the higher-ups at FOX are praying that Spielberg's Ready Player One will do lots of wonder for Tye Sheridan's bankability as a lead commercial actor (there's no question about his actual acting talent, of course. Kid's one of the best actors of his generation right now, honestly). And that the final season of Game of Thrones will at least give some leftover momentum for Sophie Turner.

Both are happening in 2018, which (assuming the next team movie be released on 2019 or a bit later) should be the approximate time the bosses at FOX and the next filmmaking team will decide whether or not to put lots of their eggs in the Scott and Jean basket (and let's face it, the actors' popularity have a lot to do with this). They were already well-received in X-M:A. I really foresee them becoming the new Wolverine and Mystique of this flagship. Which, to be honest, I'm not too salty about, since it's Cyclops and Jean. They just feel more "right" and "deserving" of that status. (It's kind of funny now, when I look back and remember that Tye's Cyclops wasn't even included in that life-size cardboard group promo they used in theatres. I mean, he was literally the only main character not included in it. Wtf was up with that? If I was Tye and I saw that, I'd be salty lol.)

Anyway, not saying that they shouldn't focus on the other characters. Of course they should. Storm still deserves a whole lot better, and she finally has an actress that can do her a lot of justice. And they also still have lots of room for Nightcrawler to grow. And Kodi was phenom. (As I've been saying lots of times, the casting people struck gold in finding these youngsters. I hope they don't squander it.)

 

[GuestStar2004]

I'm pretty sure at least some of the higher-ups at FOX are praying that Spielberg's Ready Player One will do lots of wonder for Tye Sheridan's bankability as a lead commercial actor (there's no question about his actual acting talent, of course. Kid's one of the best actors of his generation right now, honestly). And that the final season of Game of Thrones will at least give some leftover momentum for Sophie Turner.

Its not always about being bankable though as if it was than they probably wouldn't have hired tye for the movie or even fairly unknown at the time lawrence for hunger games.

(and let's face it, the actors' popularity have a lot to do with this). They were already well-received in X-M:A. I really foresee them becoming the new Wolverine and Mystique of this flagship. Which, to be honest, I'm not too salty about, since it's Cyclops and Jean.

I think you may be abit off on that one as jackman didn't make wolverine popular, the character was made popular by first movie and just the fact he was wolverine, while with mystique you could jump on that wagon of its jennifer lawrence or you could think about it like they were already setting the character up in FC to have a bigger purpose which you can sorta see if you look at that film with how they made her the total opposite so she had to grow as the films went on so shouldn't be a huge shock, perhaps the marketing was more on lawrence because of her fame but apocalypse wasn't exactly anymore lawrence heavy than it was tye,sophie,kodi,james,michael ect ect

in the long run if ready player one is successful it won't make cyclops more successful because if people don't like the character which some think the character is a dick than no matter how big tye become it wouldn't make cyclops more popular, infact it could have an opposite effect on tye if done wrong.

Evan Peters as quicksilver is probably the one that stands out in peoples minds purely from a character stand point and not a bankable name stand point, he may be the one people on here often over look probably because quicksilver isn't as popular in the comics as he has become in the films so people here often forget the positive reaction he got.

its all in peoples minds really when it comes to bankable vs character.

(It's kind of funny now, when I look back and remember that Tye's Cyclops wasn't even included in that life-size cardboard group promo they used in theatres. I mean, he was literally the only main character not included in it. Wtf was up with that? If I was Tye and I saw that, I'd be salty lol.)

i doubt that was to crap on tye sheridan, it was likely just a random pick of characters

 

[Fervid09]

Its not always about being bankable though as if it was than they probably wouldn't have hired tye for the movie or even fairly unknown at the time lawrence for hunger games.

Yes, but I'm talking about the future of the franchise beyond X-M:A. It's safe to assume that FOX is currently brainstorming on how to move this franchise forward, and they have to prioritize characters and actors in these decisions. I'm sure they hired Tye because he's a great actor and he reportedly blew them away during his audition, but X-M:A wasn't resting solely on him and so his bankability wasn't that important as far as X-M:A was concerned. They still had McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawrence for that, not to mention the hype generated by Apocalypse' character himself.

The future is a different matter though. X-M:A ended up being divisive/disappointing/failure (depending on who you ask), and add to that the possibility that most of the original FC cast don't come back, they'll need all the good will and star power they can get for the next set of movies. That's my point.

I think you may be abit off on that one as jackman didn't make wolverine popular, the character was made popular by first movie and just the fact he was wolverine, while with mystique you could jump on that wagon of its jennifer lawrence or you could think about it like they were already setting the character up in FC to have a bigger purpose which you can sorta see if you look at that film with how they made her the total opposite so she had to grow as the films went on so shouldn't be a huge shock, perhaps the marketing was more on lawrence because of her fame but apocalypse wasn't exactly anymore lawrence heavy than it was tye,sophie,kodi,james,michael ect ect

I didn't say Jackman made Wolverine popular. And I don't care too much with regards to Mystique. Wolverine and Mystique weren't even the central point in my original post. I was just using them as analogy and examples of how the next set of movies could utilize Cyclops and Jean with regards to being the pull/star power of the franchise. To be honest, I'm even finding this exchange a bit tedious already. I don't want to have yet another debate about freakin' Jackman and Lawrence. I'm sure you'd understand.

in the long run if ready player one is successful it won't make cyclops more successful because if people don't like the character which some think the character is a dick than no matter how big tye become it wouldn't make cyclops more popular, infact it could have an opposite effect on tye if done wrong.

Agreed that RPO wouldn't necessarily determine anything about X-Men as a whole, but I disagree that its success and Tye's part in it won't have any bearing on how Cyclops' role is handled in the next X-films. If they determine Tye to be a capable and sufficient lead, reaching to the point that they want to make him one of the central faces of the franchise, FOX and the scriptwriters will make Cyclops more likeable if they want him to be more likeable. They'll change/adjust some of his character traits, history, dialogue, screentime, relationships/dynamics with other characters if they have to in order to make him more popular/likeable. And let's not forget the importance of an actor's natural charisma, acting skills, and how well they embody their character. Which Tye had in spades as Scott. And which the FOX execs and scriptwriters would be dumb to ignore.

Evan Peters as quicksilver is probably the one that stands out in peoples minds purely from a character stand point and not a bankable name stand point, he may be the one people on here often over look probably because quicksilver isn't as popular in the comics as he has become in the films so people here often forget the positive reaction he got.

As fun as Quicksilver's character is, his antics are getting old. And he has no natural pull as a character in himself. Yes yes, he's funny, he's hilarious, he has a badass ability and he's the son of Magneto, but other than that? He won't be enough. He's not leader material. He's at least 10 years older than the other kids. His relationship with Magneto can only be explored and given justice if Fassbender actually chooses to come back, which at this point feels a little too late. He's vastly overpowered, meaning he has to be nerfed in most of his scenes, or else all conflicts will be anti-climactic. He has full control and confidence of his powers, so there's not even a setback or character conflict/drama to be pulled (unlike Jean and her inner conflicts when it comes to the Phoenix being OP as heck, or other characters who suffer because of their appearance and/or uncontrollable/destructive abilities). And by the time the next X-Men film comes out, we'd have already seen The Flash in the big screen. Speedster characters won't be a novelty anymore, the way QS was when DOFP came out.

its all in peoples minds really when it comes to bankable vs character.

Really? Hate to be a hypocrite since I just said above that I don't like talking about this, but Wolverine says hi. Most people hate the fact now, but nobody can deny that FOX milked Jackman's Wolverine for all its worth. And they did the same with Lawrence, for better or worse. And yes, I know she didn't really have as big a part in X-M:A as the trailers and promos had us believe, but the fact that they indulged her demands not to be in make-up for most of the movie? Letting her get away with most of her acting choices where she just looked outright done and tired of this freakin' franchise? That's part of bankability. Higher-ups indulging actors' demands because they need that actor's star power in their movie.

i doubt that was to crap on tye sheridan, it was likely just a random pick of characters

Yeah, I wasn't claiming some kind of conspiracy against Tye himself. I doubt they even cared at all, honestly. Still, it was effin' weird. And no, they didn't just pick random characters. Literally every mutant main character in the final act was there. The 4 horsemen, Apocalypse, Xavier, Mystique, Beast, Jean, Nightcrawler and Quicksilver. All except Cyclops. It shouldn't be that much of a big deal if one more or two were missing, but the fact that the future leader of the X-Men was the only one missing in their big ass group photo was baffling.